77% oppose public money for political parties

In the Guardian/ ICM poll, published today, only 20% agreed that public money should be used to finance political parties.  A whopping 77% thought it should not.

Yesterday, from the Electoral Commission, we learnt what the political parties spent their donors' money on.  Here is my colour-coded top ten of 'General Election expenses' which explain why voters don't trust politicians with their money...

1. Cherie's £7,700 hair bill;
2. Alastair Campbell's £47,000 consultancy bill (remember how AC had to leave Downing Street in 2003 after disgracing his office?);
3. £100,000 to convert a bus into the Prescott Express;
   
4. £299 on Star Trek suits (to ridicule Vulcan Man John Redwood);
5. £441,000 from the Tories for the Crosby-Textor firm of Lynton Crosby;
6. £3,500 for groundhog costumes for Tory workers to dress up in outside Labour's 'stuck-in-the-past' HQ;
7. £6,000 to run a 'Value for Money' press conference (my favourite!);
   
8. £3,638.35 on make-up for Michael Howard... and a little under £1,900 on make-up for Charles Kennedy;
   
9. £350 on hand-made shirts for Charles Kennedy and another £4,800 on five suits.
10. A £20+ bar bill at an Exeter hotel.
    

Comments

[Matthew Oxley]

Come on ed, £20 isn't much when you're out on the pop these days.

[Alexander Drake]

Maybe Charlie didn't need as much make-up because he was...er...well-preserved?

Boom boom.

[Rick]

Why can't they form proper businesses instead of PR fronts for influence-peddlers" ?

I mean they could invest in property like the SPD or printing firms ? Or maybe collect garbage for recycling.

[Ted]

It's not only £47,000 for Campbell Labour spent £530,000 for Mark Penn (Clinton's election consultant) plus another £143,000 for Philip Gould - thats nearly a whole peerage spent on election consultants.

[Chris]

"Come on ed, £20 isn't much when you're out on the pop these days."
Got to agree here, and you don't need to even go overboard. It's gonna cost you more than 20 quid for a half decent bottle of wine in a nice bar.

[Wat Tyler]

We must keep banging away on this- I've yet to meet anyone in the real world (well, Surrey anyway) who wants to have taxfunded parties, and this outrageous expenses chit puts some flesh on the spluttering bones of discontent (maybe that's enough metaphors for today).

[Chad]

I can only repeat, not only are state-funded political parties unconservative, undemocratic and unpopular with the public, but on a strategy level, they also aid Labour (potentially allows Brown to call a snap election once all debts have been conveniently mopped up by the taxpayer).

No (small c) conservative believing in small government could support the switch to state-funded vehicles.

This is effectively charging people to vote. It is repulsive.

The state funding proposals from Cameron are the most obvious sign of a split between the conservative party and conservatism and I just hope this error is corrected.

[malcolm]

One really has to wonder at the sanity of the 20% who think state funding of political parties is a good idea.Who are these people and why do they hold these views?

[Chad]

Hi Malcolm,

They're on this site! Actually I've pretty much heard from those in favour here who have slammed my opposition and pledge to offer a free-vote option as madness.

The are regular Tory Party members here who actively wish to encourage a method that preserves the status of the top 3 parties and prevents new parties emerging.

Some people are actually happy to swap democracy for preserving their own choice of political party. Win no matter what the long-term cost it would seem.

[Ted]

The question at the heart of this is which is more corrupting - state funding or private.

Countries with high levels of state funding seem to produce a political class which more & more resembles the description of Hewitt & Clarke on the other thread. Party allegiance is rewarded over independent thought, the emergence of new parties made more difficult, the membership sidelined. As we can see in Germany and others parties still look to illegal funding and arrangements based on influence matched to cash.

The corruption that has arisen here from private donations isn't about under the counter transactions - though loans should have been transparent. It's about cash passing to buy a seat in the Legislature.

A maximum donation of £100,000 in any one calendar year, transparency on lending, greater transparency on appointments to HoL & other honours with increased supervision by appointments commission (until HoL reform can find a longer term & better solution) should be what the membership of the party should put forward and I agree with Wat that we should campaign on this strongly. No tax payer funding for political campaigning.

[Chad]

I know this will be controversial, but you party members have the power.

If the top brass saw a committment to not vote Tory but lend your vote in protest against state funding plans, I am sure Cameron would drop his proposals and support very quickly.

This is your chance to stand up for small government and will only impact the party if they ignore all the weight of opinion and proceed with state funding.

By doing this now, you can help get the Tory Party back on track before the next election.

If you will go ahead and vote Tory no matter what they do, then you will be doing Britain a disservice. Someone has to be the voice of small government and the 77% of the public who oppose these plans and I would much prefer that to be the Tory Party.

[Deputy Editor]

The question at the heart of this is which is more corrupting - state funding or private... As we can see in Germany and others parties still look to illegal funding and arrangements based on influence matched to cash.
You've hit on a major point Ted.
We have a regulated system already which parties can work around illegally if they wish. Whether their regulated income is from taxpayers or donors is irrelevant in terms of corruption.

[Alexander Drake]

The are regular Tory Party members here who actively wish to encourage a method that preserves the status of the top 3 parties and prevents new parties emerging.

Yep, that's my position, and I am definitely opposed to any changes which would help facilitate any new parties emerging - at least any that undermine the electoral position of the Conservative Party. I'm not interested in being lily-white about this. I'm interested in whatever changes favour my party of preference.

Some people are actually happy to swap democracy for preserving their own choice of political party. Win no matter what the long-term cost it would seem.

The long term interest is exactly why I see public funding as a useful tool to stabilise the political topography, Chad. The Westminster system does not work wekk with a balkanised party system. I would like to see the retention of the system whereby a majority in a constituency-based lower house of parliament determines the government of the day.

That requires a party system that is cohesive and disciplined. That in turn requires sufficiently broad based parties big enough to secure government.

To be big enough to do that, you need a large mainstream party, which in the past was sustained by mass membership. People don't join parties in 2006, and so imo we have two choices. Either we sustain parties by another way to keep the parliamentary system as it is going, or we prepare for a breakdown of the conventional party system. I prefer the former over the latter.

[Richard]

"Either we sustain parties by another way to keep the parliamentary system as it is going, or we prepare for a breakdown of the conventional party system. I prefer the former over the latter."

The problem is that the former involves compelling the taxpayer to fund it against their will.

[Chad]

Hi Alexander,

Principles aside for a moment, strategically, the problem is that although state funding may well preserve the Tory Party it will benefit Labour more.

I'm sure the Tory Party will not have the slightest problem raising enough funds to fight the next election, but I bet Labour will have an enormous problem, imho.

So I would say that even for those people like yourself who are not interested in the undemocratic problems with state funding, just seeking to preserve your own party, I think you will find that it will do this as you wish, but will preserve it as the party of opposition, not power.

This plan works straight into Labour's hands. Debts wiped out in a second, financial control over the very existence of the 'opposition' parties.

And don't forget the little issue of 77% of the public opposing it. They are the ones who will be voting after all.

I'm struggling to find a single reason how a conservative could support this, and even if it happened how it would help the Tories to beat Labour.

It's unconservative, undemocratic, unpopular and likely to give Labour (the ruling party who set the funding rules) an advantage over their rivals.

Opposing this repulsive idea seems a no-brainer to me.

[Alexander Drake]

Taxpayers pay for lots of stuff they don't like, Richard. If taxpayers have to shell out cash, I could think of substantially less useful things it could be used on, than protecting the long-term stability of the British polity.

[Ted]

Deputy Ed

state funding is I believe more corrupting in the longer term as it harms the relationship between members/supporters and the parties and creates a state funded political oligarchy.

I agree with Alexander that our system works better with an either/or party grouping but do not think the present system has failed in terms of providing funding to political campaigning. The failure has been in the relationship between reward and donations - and measures can be taken to ensure compliance with a transparent donor based funding system.

[Chad]

Just replace 'political parties' with, for example, 'supermarkets' for a moment.

What would happen if politicians protected Tesco and Sainsburies to carry on as they wish and actively prevented competition?

Who would get stitched up? Yes, the customer of course, just as the electorate would under state funding.

Or to be awkward and quote point 8 of Built to Last:
We believe that government should be closer to the people, not further away.

State funding actively takes government further away from the people.

[Alexander Drake]

Greetings Chad

although state funding may well preserve the Tory Party it will benefit Labour more.

Disagree - I think every extra resource given to the Opposition is far more valuable to them, that whoever is in Government.

Incumbents have the advantage of far more media airtime and column space, patronage (peerages?) to dispense, thus making it easeier to attract resources from donors, and the advice of vast government departments in formulating policies. Amongst all that, parties in Opposition find it harder to attract airtime, resources (no power) and are working against the inertia in the system that favours incumbency. Every extra pound that goes to an Opposition makes much more of a difference than to whoever is in Government.

I'm struggling to find a single reason how a conservative could support this, and even if it happened how it would help the Tories to beat Labour.

I am a Conservative, Chad, and I support it because my party is in opposition, and I think this will make it easier to fight a general election and win, for the reasons above. I don't think public funding is an ideological issue - we may just have to agree to disagree.

To me as a rock-solid Conservative supporter, the no-brainer is to do whatever will enhance the resources at the disposal of the Conservative Party to form the next government. I believe public funding disproportionately assists Oppositions over Governments. Ergo it helps my party.

: )

[Alexander Drake]

Political parties in some ways are defacto parts of the British constitutional structure as they effectively operate as colleges from which MPs and Ministers are drawn. Not sure supermarkets perform a similar function Chad...

[Chad]

We certainly won't agree over this one Alexander!

All I can guarantee is that there will be one box on the ballot papers with a 'This Vote Is Free' logo.

The people will ultimately decide on this, not the politicians.

[Suggestion]

Speaking as a Tory, I hope that nobody will take up Chad's suggestion that we "lend" our votes elsewhere - right before crucial local elections.

Tories need to vote Tory, and make their case from within. The alternative is more stories about how well Labour is doing/more poor town residents stuck with spendthrift LibDem control.

Council seats matter and Tories need every vote out there. And in fact if you can get out there and join us in canvassing please do so.

[Chad]

And in fact if you can get out there and join us in canvassing please do so.
Where in the country are you canvassing Suggestion?

[Deputy Editor]

Ted, you are of course right about the long-term corruptive effect of an oligarchical system - one look over the Channel proves it.

One point I would make to the brave Alexander: whilst not having the powers of government is clearly disadvantageous for an opposition party, wouldn't state funding exacerbate that problem by giving in proportion to the results of the previous election?

[Alexander Drake]

I don't think there would be a problem to be exacerbated, Sam. Every extra pound of funding would, I think, be many times more valuable to an Opposition than to a government for the reasons I outlined above, thus effectively nullifying any issues based on funds being based on voter share from the last election.

[Suggestion]

Chad, by "us" I mean the Conservatives. I think you will find we are contesting the locals just about everywhere in the UK.

And these elections are both important in and of themselves, and as a sign of how the Tory renaissance is faring.

So please, don't even consider protest voting on any issue. Vote Tory and persuade everyone you know to do the same. There are many ways to make your voices heard within the party.

A "protest" vote has consequences. It lets in Labour and LibDem councillors, so real local residents suffer real hardship. Elections matter. Votes count. Here's hoping all Tories use theirs to change this country for the better by electing responsible Tory councils.

[Chad]

I'm guessing Salford.

Anyway, back on topic:
But if Labour set the rules based on a multiplier of seats won rather than votes, then compares to the equality of spending last time, Labour will get 80% more funds than the Tories (356/198)

No government is going to set new rules that gives the opposition an advantage.

[Alexander Drake]

Even on a seat-by-seat basis Chad I still think the ratio is sufficiently close for the Conservative Party to gain more out of it than the Labour Party, as things stand.

[Matthew Sinclair]

I think I agree that both state funding and caps to funding are a bad idea:

http://sinclairsmusings.blogspot.com/2006/03/funding-political-parties.html

But I have no idea why you're so hysterical about it Chad. Political parties already receive money for being in government or in opposition (David Cameron's car controversy is a prime example). The choice over whether to expand state funding should be a technical one over which system is likely to minimise corruption and ensure representative parties.

If conservatives throw their toys out of the pram over issues like this then we'll become the Democrats. Doomed to tilting at our own windmills.

[Geoff]

Which previous election would it be, though, Mr Deputy Editor? Any nationwide one?

If it was worked out from the last European one, for example, then at the next General Election UKIP, the Greens and the BNP would get disproportionately high funding. If funding was General Election to General Election then it favours the Westminster incumbent and the status quo. How do we then set funding levels for our regular electoral contest to send people to face our European enemies in their den of corruption?

However that is getting too tied up in the logistics and detail. On principle the idea of (more) public funding of political parties should be anathema to a conservative.

If a number-cruncher can tell us that the Royal Family costs us (from memory) 79p a year each and yet there are still those who want to call our monarch Mrs. Windsor because her family are supposedly "scroungers" then I would love to hear the outcry when somebody actually costs this up.

Make concrete proposals and then let the public see what it would cost in terms of emotive stuff - nurses' salaries, schoolteachers, rescuing cats from trees etc.

Frankly I think a nice new nuclear power station or a shiny warship would be more useful, but that's just me...

This is a horrendous can of worms which we should never have allowed to be opened, and much of the blame must rest with us for not keeping better focus on the very real cash-for-Labour-peerages scandal.

[Ted]

BTW I see that Nick Robinson also highlights the one bit of Labour expenditure that tickled me - the £53.46 that Tony claime for going to Buck House to offer his resignation and ask HM to call the election (including two hours waiting time for his driver).

As a taxpayer I'm quite willing for the cost of this generous gesture to be met from taxpayers funds and would look forward to an early repeat.

[Chad]

Hi Matthew,

Opposition is not 'hysterical'. I am simply and calmly 100% opposed to the plan!

We all generally agree in the need for Short money, though I believe it should be reduced dramatically, however I am completely opposed to plans that take government further away from the people, something anyone who supports Built To Last should to, as it is enshrined in point 8.

There is a major difference from facilitating an opposition to operate in parliament, which aids democracy and forcing the tax paying to fund all political activities and even only applying this selectively, which is undemocratic.

All I am saying is that I agree with the 77% of the people who oppose this plan and in the absence of the Tories offering them a chance to vote for free, I will so do.

pa dum, pa dum. Yes, the pulse is still fine! ;-)

[michael]

Matthew, I have to agree. I'm not in favour of state funding of parties, but I think Chad resigned on the wrong set of issues at the wrong time.

Though that's Chad's own conviction, it's quite wrong for him to post on sites like this, encouraging people to cast protest votes.

There are a lot of people out there giving huge amounts of time and commitment in the hope of electing Conservative Councillors to make a positive difference in their communities. Quite frankly it's unfair to them when disgruntled people who've left the Party try to undermine their efforts on issues which are completely unconnected.

[Chad]

Matthew, should you let people row hard in the wrong direction and thus only find out when they hit a wall or should you seek to get them to change direction however hard that may be?

All the hard work in the world is useless if the message is not appealling to the public.

[Suggestion]

Thank you Michael.

Whilst respecting Chad's right to express himself, let's all remind ourselves that we are Conservatives, and we are here to gain votes for the Tories, not to lose them.

And Chad, I am not Cllr. Lindley. I have nothing personal against you, but I greatly object to your views/politics. Even more to any call to stop voting Tory.

Michael mentions about all the Tory activists giving time (I have) and money (I have - a bit). I'm going out again this week. Knocking on doors. I work heart and soul for this party and its agenda of social justice, responsible spending, and regeneration/conservation. Councils matter. I am not standing but I am working for others who are.

These elections are vital for the party and for residents in towns and cities all over the country.

Vote Tory! And get as many others as you can to do the same.

[Chad]

With respect Suggestion, we have seen how super pro-Cameron Jack Stone was actually an imposter seeking to disrupt discussion.

Whilst you feel the need to hide your identity (Whilst ironically taking up a self-declared mission for transparency!), people will be justified to wonder what you have to hide.

Why not be honest, and join the Community here as let us know who you really are and what you stand for? You are a regular here. Why hide?

[Matthew Sinclair]

There are so many issues in UK politics that no one will agree with every policy of their party. Far more conservatives will take serious issue with your party's environmental policy or opposition to the Iraq war than are seriously worried by state funding. A party has to be based around compromise.

Party affiliation has to chosen in order to ensure the highest number of good policies (weighted for importance) into practice. In a first past the post system that means that there needs to be a really high bar to splitting your side's vote and gifting your political opponents electoral victories; there is no way that proposals for increasing state funding are that important.

[Suggestion]

Chad, the Conservatives are just about to fight very important local elections.

Your quote in this thread was:

"I know this will be controversial, but you party members have the power.

If the top brass saw a committment to not vote Tory:"

When I said in the earlier thread that your views on CH, in my opinion, damage our party, this is exactly what I am talking about.

The press reads this blog and quotes this blog. You just called for Tories to a) refuse to vote Tory in these vital elections and b) post on Conservative Home that they are doing so.

Imagine if people took your advice. Imagine the stories in the press!

Whatever the wide range of thought here it's a blog about the Tory party that supports the Tory party. I am a Tory activist that has canvassed and leafletted for these elections the past few months. It is very important that our councillors get elected.

I value my anonymity and in order to disabuse you of the notion that my opposition to many of your views is based on personality, I am telling you that I'm not the guy you keep saying I am.

I'm loyal to Cameron, indeed I think the guy is inspired. I am a great admirer of Lady Thatcher. (To me Cameron offers the ...and theory on Thatcherism - financial discipline AND a social justice first policy, AND a heavy emphasis on the environment, AND concentrating on helping the weakest and poorest. Remember Tim's write up of Cameron's overlooked social justice speech... the nation of the second chance? - the emphasis there was on that Blair accepted most of Thatcher's vital reforms, and so we occupy different political space now than we did in '79).

I don't care about you and me, Chad. I've never met you. I'm here trying to ensure that on a site called Conservative Home the Cameron-supporting majority of Conservatives don't get drowned out by those, perfectly valid, voices like yours who disagree.

You just told people not to vote Tory. You said you knew it would be controversial. It was. I'm a Tory activist and party member.

I want people to vote Tory and not think a "protest vote" doesn't hurt the very people we are all in politics to champion, ie local residents.

[Chad]

Suggestion, you mention the press etc, but no-one will know whether you are genuine or a ukip plant for example whilst you feel the need to hide your identity.

For someone who has actually vowed to force more transparency on me than I could possibly offer, your demand to remain in the shadows at the same time should be viewed with suspicion.

Anyway, I'll say no more on this issue. You want to remain anonymous, and the basis of views will remain as opaque as your identity.

[Suggestion]

Chad, I do indeed want to remain anonymous. But for your information I have emailed Tim and offered to tell him my identity should he wish to know it.

Getting "back on topic" as you are fond of saying, you just told people NOT to vote Conservative, and to post on Conservative home that they were doing so.

That sums up the difference between your philosophy and mine, I think. I am a Conservative and want people to vote for us.

[michael]

Suggestion, you make an important point about the press reading this website - I'm concerned that posts on this site are being used by journalists for stories which would have voters believe there is large scale criticism within the Party on certain issues.

If ConservativeHome becomes a tool for those who want to undermine Cameron and consequently the Party, it would be a great shame. This is actually a great tool for talking up the Party, it shouldn't be a megaphone for the axegrinders.

[Suggestion]

Michael, I came out of lurking to take up that very battle and I'm hoping you and many others of the majority will too :)

When the Built to Last vote comes back I think the unity and determination in our party will be seen!

[Chad]

Sorry, final, final point. Your primary issue you have raised with me is that the people who read here, the press etc should know who I am etc. Why should those same people not also be entitled to know who you are?

I'm only pointing out that you are being somewhat hypocritical in demanding that everyone else here knows everything about me even though I have done everything I can to be 100% transparent, but at the same time, you want to hide your identity from the same people.

You are currently decieving the readers here.

[Suggestion]

No Chad, I don't think anybody has a right to know who you are.

But I think everybody should have a right to know your political affiliation, non-Tory. And I don't think saying "check the profile" is enough because journalists simply won't bother to comb through the site looking for poster profiles.

I don't care WHO you are, I only care WHAT you believe, ie that you're not Tory. And that's because I think your posts damage and hurt my party.

I've given you my political affiliation, loyalties and beliefs above, and am happy to tell the blog owner my name if he wants to know it, as I a sure he will keep it in confidence.

On this thread you just told people not to vote for the Tories and to post about it. The only way I wouldn't come in flagging that up is if I wasn't around at the time to do it.

Did you think you could say "Don't vote Tory" and other people would just let that go?

Last post on this thread. I'll leave it to others to decide if a call to withhold votes from the Conservatives on ConservativeHome damages us or not.

But lastly, to others reading, PLEASE do not consider a "protest vote". Votes are not protests, they determine what happens in people's lives. If there's something you don't support make it clear within the party, write to your MP/agent/ the policy forums/Central Office.

These elections really matter. Please vote Tory and get out there and work for your colleagues who are standing and trying to make a difference.

[Matthew Sinclair]

This debate is silly. Mr. Suggestion would clearly be an awful UKIP plant. I don't give the UKIPsters much credit for understanding the world around them but I doubt they think that sending a loyalist in to argue with you against a protest vote to oppose the Tory Party would be an effective strategy.

I can't see how being UKIP would provide a basis for arguing against a protest vote. Unless you were to make really bad arguments in an effort to discredit those who usually make them but Suggestion is performing competently.

[Chad]

Matthew, don't be naive. It took a very long time for people to rumble Jack Stone and wasn't until a heavy clue was given that people began to realise that he wasn't a super pro-Cameron Tory party member.

OK, we can move on now.

As a small c conservative, for which this site is open (ie not just Tory members or even supporters), I will actively seek to oppose non-conservative proposals and equally to support conservative ones.

If the Tory Party ploughs ahead with such an unconservative plan as state funding, then I think it is perfectly legitimate to give small c conservatives (and anyone else who opposes state funding of political parties) a chance to vote without it costing them a penny.

I pledge to do that and will seek to raise the candidates and funds to stand in every seat should such a plan be introduced so those who do vote, can do so without it costing them.

[malcolm]

Hey I've been in Oz for the past few weeks and haven't been able to access this site.What's the buzz on Jack Stone?I was rude to him some months ago and got told off by the Ed.Don't tell me he's not a genuine Cameroonie who likes the word 'nonsense' but has severe difficulties in the spelling dept.

[J.W.Tozer]

Here I am again

State funding, if it does come, then the money should not go to the political parties. An office of political regulation (OFPOL) should be set up.

What constitutes a legal political party, would be made clear and all parties would have to publish a constitution that complies with very strict criteria.

All political parties would have to register prior to a general election. To fight a Westminster seat, a minimum of 50 fully paid up members, domiciled in the constituency must be proved. Register of all party members would be held on the OFPOL data base. There would also be a trigger point 5% say before a party qualified for payment. That would be 5% for England/Scotland/Wales/NI. seperately, so the nationalist parties don't feel hard done by. It would also stop people forming political parties to get the money.

If for instance, a party received ten million pounds after a general election, say two pounds per vote, OFPOL would hold that money. It would then act as a bank, parties would set up direct debits to pay for day today expenses, anything spurious would be rejected. payments from individuals/unions/companies would also be sent to OFPOL, to be scrutinised, to ensure that they comply with very strict legal parameters. OFPOL would be financed from the interest on the capital sum. It's accounts would be audited by a reputable firm of accounants and published every year showing: what went where, and who gave what. Ofpol would also have investigative powers able to look into the affairs of the parties and politicians suspected of financial, jiggery pokery.

[William]

The EU Directive for the Funding of Political Parties was challenged in the ECJ by 25 MEP's, one of whom was Roger Helmer. The case lasted 18 months, and the challenge failed.

The Directive states that private donations to political parties should become illegal. It states that all funding should come from the State. Furthermore, it specifies that funding can be witheld from unsuitable parties. No marks for guessing which parties those might be in Britain.

It is not surprising therefore, that both Labour and Conservative had to stop raising their funds as they have done since time immemorial - from private donation. The loan ploy was an attempt to get around the Directive, which has obviously failed, as the loans are clearly donations dressed as loans.

The solution to the crisis is being presented by Blair and Cameron acting as one as a move to state funding, as if they thought of it themselves.

Strange how the whole situation has been caused by an EU Directive, which Cameron has never mentioned, Blair has never mentioned and the media have never mentioned.

A true Conservative leader should spell out what is going on - not continue the misleading of the electorate. If Cameron acts as a Europhile, he will lose a big part of his potential support. It seems from the Polls that he will not replace this loss quickly enough from the environmental and trendy sections of the electorate.

In short he is shaping up as a loser. He's backing the EU horse when the electorate want a Conservative Party that will fight for British independence.

[Richard]

"What's the buzz on Jack Stone?"

He was a UKIP supporter pretending to be an OTT Cameron supporter so as to antagonise Cameron-sceptics.

77% oppose public money for political parties: Discuss

[Chad]

Here is the link to Roger Helmer's site with the article that confirms William's post on the EU being behind the state funding drive.

Link Here

[kingbongo]

Chad - I'm anonymous because where I work I am not supposed to have overt political sympathies, but I am a real human being and a Conservative Party member :-)

I know party funding is very important to you but you always go over the top and ask us to not vote tory because of it - it's not going to happen and puts you in Peter Hitchens territory.

I am a conservative Conservative and after a lot of humming and hahhing I think the extended state funding of parties is wrong and a funding formula that rewards the incumbent party is wrong. The 77% of the public are right - why should they pay for the political class?

As Conservatives we need to change the perception of politicians by being straightforward and transparent in our dealings and think of a better way of getting our funds such as making donations tax deductible etc.

I think you'd get further in your campaign for conservativism by supporting the only party with the potential to deliver some of it.

[Chad]

Hi KB,

I don't care who anyone is, only that those who demand more transparency are prepared to do the same! That seems fair, doesn't it? It was Suggestion who started demanded disclaimers etc.

Back to point:
Does this EU directive provide a link to why the EPP withdrawal has not been forthcoming?

Without a transnational grouping (which agrees to an EU agenda) the Tories would lose funding.

I think you'd get further in your campaign for conservativism by supporting the only party with the potential to deliver some of it.

It's funny how offering a simple democratic choice is distorted. I am simply planning to give people a choice. I would prefer the Tory Party to do this, hence why I am here seeking to get them to drop their plans, however, if they refuse, then, and only then, will I have to try another channel to give people a choice.

Calm and reasoned. For me, democracy is about choice. If the big 3 all agree on a policy like this but 77% of the public disagree, it seems reasonable to seek to represent those people.

[malcolm]

Are you sure Richard? His posts were really very unimpressive and would not really have benefited UKIP at all.
As regards state funding it seems that this blog is fairly united in accepting that it is a really bad idea.The exposing of election expenses has made it much less likely that it will happen I think.

[Simon C]

I wonder what the James Review would have made of this....?

Clearly politicians who approve this sort of expenditure will have extreme difficulty in challenging public service waste with any credibility.

If we are to "be the change" we cannot seriously support taxpayer funding for political parties, unless it's tightly & transparently restricted to Short Money types of activity.

[Richard]

"Are you sure Richard? His posts were really very unimpressive and would not really have benefited UKIP at all."

Someone made several identical posts a few days ago giving a link to the UKIP forum where someone called Michael admitted to posting here as an ultra-loyal "bootlicking" Cameron supporter.

He once told right-wingers to "sod off" and claimed that Cameron was the best leader since Margaret Thatcher. I expect he was just being mischievous and trying to make the Cameron-sceptics think that many of the modernisers despised them.

[Richard]

Here is the link: http://www.ukipforum.co.uk/about10602.html

[malcolm]

Thanks Richard.I'm still not sure 'though.I thought someone who wanted to do this would show more wit than dear Jack has done.I wonder if someone is trying to impersonate him,a couple of recent posts contain no spelling mistakes at all!

[Richard]

In the past he has made a few relatively sensible posts, probably as an attempt to make people think "maybe he's not a troll after all".

[deborah]

What a shame.
What's the point of all this wittering on, fretting about UKIP tendencies. This site is open to all and all sorts will write on it.
Lets skip the personal stuff - if you disagree with someone just say so. If their views are out of line it will become obvious.
Discussions like this switch people off.